Artikelen

This essay provides an overview of the evolution of the location and appearance of Amsterdam shops in the period from around 1550 to 1850. With the aid of a new technique (Space Syntax Analysis) it has been established that shops selling luxury goods were located in highly accessible areas within the Amsterdam street network. In practice this meant in the vicinity of Dam Square, the old riverbanks either side of the River Amstel, and along the radial streets running from the city gates and outlying districts into the city centre. Because the street pattern of the early modern part of Amsterdam changed very little, existing accessibility patterns and thus also the retail function of the old shopping streets endured. Even today those old retail development patterns are still apparent. Shops selling food and other daily necessities were – in line with existing location theories – dispersed across the city.

For centuries Amsterdam shops had an open character reminiscent of market stalls. Shopkeepers placed their wares on the stoop, on window ledges and on folded-down lower shutters, or they hung the goods from the well-nigh ubiquitous awnings. This practice was hardly surprising since the front part of the house was usually poorly lit, and steps, cellar doors, cellar shops and other obstacles prevented pedestrians from walking close to the facades. As such, the facade and the stoop served as the shopkeeper’s display case. It was not until the late seventeenth century and more especially during the eighteenth century that the shops on the main shopping streets started to place their wares inside the building, thereby following the example of shops in London and Paris and responding to the welltodo clientele’s desire for privacy. This transition was aided by the introduction of timber mullion and transom windows with large panes of clear glass, the removal of awnings and the clearing of obstacles on the stoop. In addition, from the late eighteenth century there were technological innovations in interior lighting (Argand oil lamp and gas lamp), while the second half of the eighteenth century saw the emergence of the first ‘real’ shopfronts with accentuated entrances.

With the relocation of the merchandise from the facade and the stoop to the shop space behind the facade, the furnishing of this space gained in importance. The sometimes exceedingly austere sixteenth- and seventeenth-century interiors, especially in the shops selling luxury goods on the main shopping streets, started to give way to interiors with beautifully decorated counters, cabinets and display cases. From the beginning of the nineteenth century, and once again influenced by London and Paris, the vital link with the public in the street was maintained via projecting shop windows and later by flat display windows and lavish lighting of the shop interior. At the same time, the first examples of the chain store made their appearance in Amsterdam.

This essay provides an overview of the evolution of the location and appearance of Amsterdam shops in the period from around 1550 to 1850. With the aid of a new technique (Space Syntax Analysis) it has been established that shops selling luxury goods were located in highly accessible areas within the Amsterdam street network. In practice this meant in the vicinity of Dam Square, the old riverbanks either side of the River Amstel, and along the radial streets running from the city gates and outlying districts into the city centre. Because the street pattern of the early modern part of Amsterdam changed very little, existing accessibility patterns and thus also the retail function of the old shopping streets endured. Even today those old retail development patterns are still apparent. Shops selling food and other daily necessities were – in line with existing location theories – dispersed across the city.

For centuries Amsterdam shops had an open character reminiscent of...

This essay provides an overview of the evolution of the location and appearance of Amsterdam shops in the period from around 1550 to 1850. With the aid of a new technique (Space Syntax Analysis) it has been established that shops selling luxury goods were located in highly accessible areas...

The cultural heritage institutions in the Netherlands have traditionally taken a dim view of the reconstruction of heritage buildings when most or all of the material substance has been lost. Recent discussions about, for example, the listed status of the reconstructed mill at Burum (destroyed by fire in 2012) or the possible reconstruction of the nineteenth-century attic of Artis’s Ledenlokalen (damaged during World War II) illustrate that the guiding principles of the institutional heritage sector do not seem to meet the actual challenges arising from the quest for reconstruction. There is a need for in-depth investigations and theoretical reflections on this topic, yet these are rare at present in the Netherlands. Hence this article takes a closer look at Germany where – in reaction to an increasing number of reconstruction initiatives, such as the Berlin Palace or the Neumarkt/Frauenkirche in Dresden – some noteworthy research projects have been conducted in recent years. First and foremost is Geschichte der Rekonstruktion – Konstruktion der Geschichte, an extensive study by a group of scholars led by Winfried Nerdinger and Uta Hassler. Based on a large corpus of reconstruction cases from different time periods dating back to the classical age, they concluded that the act of restoring a structure to an earlier, lost state using new materials has a long cultural history. The case-study analysis also revealed that while the motives for reconstruction are quite stable over the centuries, the paradigms and techniques for the preservation of ancient monuments are historically determined.

The publication and exhibition of the research results provoked fierce protests from German heritage professionals who feared that these conclusions might pressurize them to abandon their reserved attitude towards reconstruction. Their line of argumentation mainly followed the guiding principles of the founding fathers of the modern heritage preservation movement, including Alois Riegl and Georg Dehio. The dispute generated an anthology of interesting key texts, but it also demonstrated that clinging to a theoretical framework established over a hundred years ago can blind one to relevant topics for in-depth research within the field of heritage preservation, such as the question of how and to what extent different target groups should be informed about the reconstruction of (parts of) a building. Another promising line of investigation concerns the various heritage values related to the topic of reconstruction – think of traditional values like the beeldwaarde (image) or recently established ones like the belevingswaarde (experience) and nostalgiewaarde (nostalgia) – and their shift in meaning over time.

The cultural heritage institutions in the Netherlands have traditionally taken a dim view of the reconstruction of heritage buildings when most or all of the material substance has been lost. Recent discussions about, for example, the listed status of the reconstructed mill at Burum (destroyed by fire in 2012) or the possible reconstruction of the nineteenth-century attic of Artis’s Ledenlokalen (damaged during World War II) illustrate that the guiding principles of the institutional heritage sector do not seem to meet the actual challenges arising from the quest for reconstruction. There is a need for in-depth investigations and theoretical reflections on this topic, yet these are rare at present in the Netherlands. Hence this article takes a closer look at Germany where – in reaction to an increasing number of reconstruction initiatives, such as the Berlin Palace or the Neumarkt/Frauenkirche in Dresden – some noteworthy research projects have been conducted in recent...

The cultural heritage institutions in the Netherlands have traditionally taken a dim view of the reconstruction of heritage buildings when most or all of the material substance has been lost. Recent discussions about, for example, the listed status of the reconstructed mill at Burum (destroyed...

In September 1915, De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB) held an invited design competition for a new building beside the bank’s existing headquarters on Oude Turfmarkt in Amsterdam. The Dutch central bank had grown so much since its founding in 1814 that expansion was unavoidable. Five architects – E. Cuypers, A.D.N. van Gendt, F.W.M. Poggenbeek, C.B. Posthumus Meyjes and J.A.G. van der Steur – were invited to submit plans. How the bank arrived at this choice of architects is unknown; in a report to the commissioners, the board stated that they had chosen five architects with a distinguished record in designing bank buildings. The archival drawings constitute a representative sample of the architectural views of these prominent, stylistically conservative architects.

The board’s choice of architects indicated that it was not looking for innovative architecture; more progressive architects like H.P. Berlage, K.P.C. de Bazel and W. Kromhout were deliberately ignored. It is clear from the terms of reference that the DNB board had decided views on the design of the new street elevation that would stand alongside the existing frontage designed by W.A. Froger. The bank asked the architects to bear in mind a possible future doubling of the facade that

would see Froger’s elevation disappear altogether. The bank required a ‘genuinely monumental facade, in harmony with the national style and in particular with the Amsterdam style’. Above all, it should not be a copy of a foreign facade, which would look out of place in the historical city. Given such ideas it is hardly surprising that the five architects came up with fairly conservative designs. Their plans demonstrate that the request for an elevation ‘in the Amsterdam style’ was open to a range of interpretations; nor were the architects equally successful in adjusting their designs to the scale of the surrounding buildings. The designs attest to the dilemma with which the bank had saddled them in asking for a design that could stand on its own but that would also prove satisfactory in the event of further expansion.

We do not know which design the board preferred, but as it turned out there was no new building because the city council wanted to purchase the site on Oude Turfmarkt from the DNB for an extension of the Binnengasthuis hospital. It was not until 1967 that the DNB moved into a new headquarters building on Frederiksplein designed by M.F. Duintjer.

In September 1915, De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB) held an invited design competition for a new building beside the bank’s existing headquarters on Oude Turfmarkt in Amsterdam. The Dutch central bank had grown so much since its founding in 1814 that expansion was unavoidable. Five architects – E. Cuypers, A.D.N. van Gendt, F.W.M. Poggenbeek, C.B. Posthumus Meyjes and J.A.G. van der Steur – were invited to submit plans. How the bank arrived at this choice of architects is unknown; in a report to the commissioners, the board stated that they had chosen five architects with a distinguished record in designing bank buildings. The archival drawings constitute a representative sample of the architectural views of these prominent, stylistically conservative architects.

The board’s choice of architects indicated that it was not looking for innovative architecture; more progressive architects like H.P. Berlage, K.P.C. de Bazel and W. Kromhout were deliberately...

In September 1915, De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB) held an invited design competition for a new building beside the bank’s existing headquarters on Oude Turfmarkt in Amsterdam. The Dutch central bank had grown so much since its founding in 1814 that expansion was unavoidable. Five...